Venezuela Bans the Commercial Sale of Firearms and Ammunition 828
Bob the Super Hamste writes "The BBC is reporting on a new law in Venezuela that effectively bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition to private citizens. Previously anyone with a permit could purchase a firearm from any commercial vendor but now only the police, military, and security firms will be able to purchase firearms or ammunition from only state-owned manufactures or importers. Hugo Chavez's government states that the goal is to eventually disarm the citizenry. The law, which went into effect today, was passed on February 29th, and up to this point the government has been running an amnesty program allowing citizens to turn in their illegal firearms. Since the law was first passed, 805,000 rounds of ammunition have been recovered from gun dealers. The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms."
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who will they blame when gun violence goes up?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) As the parent stated, gun violence will go up. Bad guys love unarmed targets.
2) Government violence against citizens will go up.
Yes, I know this is like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow. Just call me Captain Obvious.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two Predictions:
1) As the parent stated, gun violence will go up. Bad guys love unarmed targets.
2) Government violence against citizens will go up.
Yes, I know this is like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow. Just call me Captain Obvious.
I haven't look at your profile, but this is the sort of mentality I see in the US. Guns kill people no matter how you look at it, and less guns will only lead to less deaths.
If you genuinely think that a gun protects you from the goverment you're deluding yourself.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Funny)
That's why I'm building a supply of nuclear weapons!
Gotta fight fire with fire.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is making the transition from a gun owing society to a non-gun owning society. If there are already a ton of guns out there in private hands (as I guess is the case in Venezuela) and you then just take the guns away from those people who follow the law & hand them in, you're going to be left with a lot of guns in the hands of people who don't follow the law. Would there be less homicides if all the guns disappeared magically? Almost certainly. Will there be less homicides if a substantial portion of the population (criminals) keeps their guns and feel that most law abiding citizens are now incapable of defending themselves? I'm not sure.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Would there be less homicides if all the guns disappeared magically? Almost certainly.
Your conclusion is presumptuous. Humans did a damn good job of killing one another before firearms were invented, and they continue to do so today at a significant rate even when a firearm is not involved.
Re: (Score:3)
That only works if you can find the person who committed the crime, and successfully prove to a jury that they're the true assailant. Most crimes go unsolved.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It should be noted that when Florida passed its Shall Issue Law, allowing concealed carry to anyone who wanted to bother, the firearms crime rate went down.
Oddly, the firearms related crime rate with tourists as victims went UP. Note that a tourist, at that time, would have been the only type of person that could be guaranteed not to be carrying.
Which at least implies that the possibility that the victim might be carrying dissuaded some of the criminal community.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
guns are not the only thing that kills people.
If a rapist or killer has a physical advantage (or an advantage because he ignores the gun ban) he can strike with impunity against unarmed people. If the law abiding people had guns, every time he attacks he risks forfeiting his own life. That prevents deaths, either by preventing the crime or stopping the criminal.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Better to have more deaths than to have the only deaths be at the hands of criminals and a criminal government.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, guns do protect you from the government as evidenced in Mexico. The gangs there have obtained outrageous and highly dangerous weapons and the government just cannot stamp them out. Afghanistan is another example. The US just cannot seem to eliminate the 'insurgents' or whatever they are being called now.
I think in the case of Venezuela that a government move to outlaw gun ownership is probably a shrewd move by the dodgy government they have -- it provides an excuse to round up would-be rebels.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you genuinely think that a gun protects you from the goverment you're deluding yourself.
You're the one who's seriously deluded. The people in Afghanistan have repelled attempts from several large powers to take over their country many times using guns. How do you think the Soviet Army was defeated there? Or how do you think the Viet Cong defeated the Americans? Guerrilla warfare tactics and small arms have always been a huge problem for powerful armies trying to take over other countries.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) As the parent stated, gun violence will go up. Bad guys love unarmed targets.
I can't predict what will happen in Venezuela, but here is my personal experience, for what it's worth. I've lived in three European countries, all of which forbid the sale of firearms. Although crime does exist, for example breaking into apartments is common, not a single person of my very extended circles has ever faced an armed bad guy.
Believe me, small scale thieves here don't have guns. And even if you're a bad guy and you can find a gun, it's a really really stupid idea to take it with you when breaking into somebody's house, cause you don't need to protect yourself against other guns, and the last think you want is to commit murder in the heat of the moment. In "small" crimes, both the victim and the bad guy are better off without guns.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually when you go to rob someone taking a gun (since they can't legally own one) is the best move to both passify the home owner and / or murder them if needed. In these instances there won't be anyone to see you do it. The only person who did see you is now dead on the floor (or people if you murder a whole family). Criminals don't think "what is the minimal amount of defense I can take into this robbery", no they think "What can I do to make sure I get away without being caught". A gun pretty much ensures that when you tell the home owner to bury his face in the pillow while you tie him up, he does it.
This is why Americans don't want to give up weapons. We know the "kind criminal" is a myth, and we don't intend to be a victim while we hope that someone shows up to save us.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If true then Americans are fooling themselves. Criminals aren't idiots, and most will not commit a murder except by accident. The average burglar in non-gun obsessed countries runs away when confronted. Getting caught by the homeowner is a no brainer - run away and the burglary MIGHT get reported, MIGHT get investigated, and in the unlikely event you actually get arrested, attempted burglary doesn't carry a huge penalty. But if you kill the homeowner it will DEFINITELY get reported, DEFINITELY be investigated, and the solved rate on homicides in most western nations is pretty good, so you've got a good chance of doing hard time.
Countries with reasonable gun control have much lower rates of violent crime. Since you seem to be American, you have only to look north.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we can look south. Mexico has very strong gun control laws. An American tourist who gets caught by police there with a round of ammunition accidentally dropped on the floor of his vehicle can expect to stay in jail for 5 years there. How are those gun control laws working out for them? Every time I turn on the news, there's a story about dozens of people being decapitated and hung from bridges there.
The reason European countries don't have huge violent crime problems is because of culture, not gun control laws.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Mexico [wikipedia.org]
Unregulated private sale of "non-military" firearms (which include pistols of .38 calibre and smaller), which are supposed to be licensed but usually aren't. That doesn't really sound like strict gun control.
Note also that "gun control" includes both laws and the ability to enforce them. Mexico has a bit of a problem with the ability to enforce any laws at all in some places.
I agree with you that culture and other factors play a role - Switzerland is famous
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were crinimal, your nickname would be "idiot rezalas".
Police will not really work hard when investigating typical robbery. Even if homeowner saw someone, police will have rather casuall aproach because there are usually more important crimes to solve like...
Murdered family? Well, enjoy your manhunt because now you are high-priority target which made some headlines. Expect police to to a lot more thorou, dedicate more men, public call for help of witneses, check security cameras, ask cell phone operators for co-location profile of cell phones, Snitches, Bounties, Maybe short spot at news etc etc...
Just showing gun might make you improtant enough that your case will be actually investigated rather than filed. Killing someone? Con-fucking-gratulations, genius, you *really* made sure you are not getting caught, now didn't you?
Thanks for illustrating shortsigtedness of gun-people.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeha peopel who spout of urban myths and lies about guns.
"We know the "kind criminal" is a myth"
the countries where the is stricter gun control show, conclusively, that it isn't a myth.
" "What can I do to make sure I get away without being caught""
no they do not. Fuck, shut up.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Criminals don't think "what is the minimal amount of defense I can take into this robbery", no they think "What can I do to make sure I get away without being caught".
No, criminals don't think that way. They target places they think are easy, where the occupier is out. They will probably just run away if disturbed. The chances of actually being seen and identified by an eye witness are pretty slim in the dark of night while running with their back to someone. Criminals who have been in fights quickly realize that it is a risky business, the other person will probably hurt them even if they win and the best thing to do is avoid a confrontation altogether.
Below the level of white collar crime people don't tend to become criminals because they think they can get away with it, they do so because they are desperate or have no life chances. It doesn't make them murderers, Even in countries without guns they could carry knives, or get an illegal gun, but they tend not to.
In case they do it is best for the victim not to carry their own gun. The second you pull a gun on someone else your own chance of dying massively increases. People robbing houses don't want to kill other human beings, if they did they could earn a lot more money as a hit man. If you don't resist you will probably live, if you start a fight or pull your own weapon you will probably get hurt or die. The stats are quite clear. In fact if you do confront a burglar the most likely outcome is that they will flee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course as a counter example (Score:5, Insightful)
There's Washington DC. They have some of the toughest gun laws in the US, yet also one of the highest violent crime and murder rates.
So you have to ask is it really the gun laws doing it, or do the places have lower crime for other reasons?
You have to realize that there are many different conditions in different countries that lead to different crime rates. One example is Canada, quite a low homicide rate. Now they aren't nearly as gun friendly as the US (but then pretty much nobody is) but civilians can get firearms up to things like AR-15s. Also guns could easily be illegally smuggled from the US, since the border security is very, very lax.
It isn't as easy as just saying "Oh well this European country doesn't allow guns and they have less crime." Ok sure, but maybe they just have less crime period. The guns don't make much difference.
Re:Of course as a counter example (Score:4, Insightful)
There's Washington DC. They have some of the toughest gun laws in the US, yet also one of the highest violent crime and murder rates.
Because it's extremely difficult to smuggle a gun in from one of the other 49 states, many of which will give a gun to just about anyone.
Hell, with the new stand-your-ground laws, those WITHOUT guns tend to have fewer rights in practice.
Re:Of course as a counter example (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that it is illegal to buy a firearm of any kind anywhere but in your State of legal residence.
Note further that a background check is required for firearms purchases from a dealer (private sales between individuals do not require background checks), and that having a criminal record prevents one from passing the background check.
Net effect for DC - law-abiding citizens cannot own firearms, criminals can. Which is paradise for a criminal.
Note also that if merely the presence of firearms causes problems, then the problems should be no worse in DC than elsewhere. And yet DC has one of the highest murder/violent crime rates in the nation.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if you're a bad guy and you can find a gun, it's a really really stupid idea to take it with you when breaking into somebody's house, cause you don't need to protect yourself against other guns, and the last think you want is to commit murder in the heat of the moment.
Bad guys don't carry guns to protect themselves. They carry guns to tip the balance of power to their benefit. A bad guy rarely commits murder "in the heat of the moment".
both the victim and the bad guy are better off without guns
Bullshit. If you are facing a bad guy intent on doing you harm, you are far better off the the most efficient and effective means of self defense available to you.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. If you are facing a bad guy intent on doing you harm, you are far better off the the most efficient and effective means of self defense available to you.
Except now you've given the criminal a much better reason to try and kill you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want the "bad guys" to be better off. I want them to fear for their life if they break into my home, mug me, or attempt to kill me.
Right. The fun thing about fear is that it makes you react, often violently. In the position you describe, I'd rather have my assailant be completely sure that I was not a threat, so he'd concentrate on his primary financial goal and have no reason to harm me. You can't choose that sort of thing, though, and I don't think small time robbers (physical bandits, in contrast to white-collar criminals, the ones that actually rake in the big bucks) are educated enough to consider such statistics before starting their entrepreneurial venture of the day.
So you want anyone to be able to take your stuff at their leisure? What if they are not there for your possessions? What if they would like to rape your family? What if they not only want to rape your family but have a thing for necrophilia. There are sick bastards out there that I do not want anywhere near my loved ones.
Re: (Score:3)
1) Bad guys love unarmed targets.
2) Government violence against citizens will go up.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Statistics show that if the victim has a firearm, there's a greater chance of either he/she or the people near the victim being wounded.
Prove it. Cite a relevant study.
Don't make baseless claims about statistics if you don't have hard evidence.
One could make the claim that you don't need a gun to commit a violent crime or a homicide. A knife or a big piece of wood/metal or even just fists is more than sufficient.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Irrelevant to this discussion.
This is about dictatorships outlawing guns to make it harder for people to shuck off their oppressors, which is exactly why it was enshrined in the US constitution.
It's not about home safety or hunting rights, or the statistical vagaries thereto.
Mr. Dictator no want lose cush job.
And, by the way, loss of a nation's freedom exceeds all prosaic gun violence over the decades as a major disaster by light years.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bullshit. Since we're speaking in terms of hypothetical scenarios, if George Zimmerman had not had access to a gun, he might have been killed by having his head pounded into the pavement. You weren't there, so you can't prove otherwise, right? On a personal note, my father is probably still alive today because he's carried a pistol for decades, and actually had to use it to stop an assault on his person by several random thugs in a parking garage.
You do understand that making things illegal only stops law-abiding people from obtaining said items, right? I won't live in a country where I'm forced to put myself at a material disadvantage against a criminal assailant. So how about we agree to a compromise. You stay in your country of choice, and I'll stay in mine.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Those stats include suicides in the "people who are harmed by guns" numbers.
Disclaimer: I'm a non-gun-owning Canadian
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
7,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]
Disclaimer: I'd probably be labeled as a gun-control extremist and enemy of freedom by the NRA and plenty of slashdotters, but a massively flawed study is a massively flawed study.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Statistics show that if the victim has a firearm, there's a greater chance of either he/she or the people near the victim being wounded.
Actually, no they do not show any such thing. Just try to find a citation.
Heck, I even know the underlying statistic, where it came from, and how it has been misrepresented by gun-control advocates. But it would be more educational for you to try to find a citation for the urban legend you're trying to help spread than for me to spell it out for you. So go ahead, try to find a citation or any actual numbers anywhere to back up your claim ;-)
Unless of course "people near the victim" includes the attacker ;-)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
My guns hurt me all the time. Last time I went to the range, a piece of hot brass (strangely, from Venezuelan surplus ammo) burnt the heck out of my arm. And, I dropped my staple gun on my toe, which has an ingrown toenail, and that *really* hurt a lot.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are so hell-bent on fighting baseless claims, you should also go after the first two posters above who make their claims without any citations either.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
no I do not exaggerate, my gun really is that big.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
That statistic is one of the most widely quoted among the RKBA crowd. And no, most gun owners that I know don't exaggerate about these sorts of statistics. This is simply because most of us don't see the point of winning an argument by lying. Now group size on the other hand. Well, I threw away the target, but...
Anyway, back to the point. The statistic is not Wayne LaPierre's nor does it belong to the NRA-ILA. It comes from a paper published in The Journal of the American Medical Association by Gary Kleck, PhD titled "What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?" In it he cites a study by himself and Marc Gertz which estimated as many as 2.55 million defensive uses of firearms each year in the US. This includes situations in which merely displaying a firearm stopped the confrontation.
The paper may be obtained from the JAMA website:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?ResourceID=3329130&PDFSource=13 [jamanetwork.com]
A copy of the original study is here:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html [guncite.com]
Incidentally, in 1994, a year after the Kleck/Gertz study The Department of Justice conducted their own survey and estimated only 1.5 million defensive uses annually.
I would also add anecdotally, a few years ago I was part of the 2.5 million (or more?) for that year, when the display of the full-size 1911 that I had holstered under my jacket that day dissuaded an urban youth from using his knife to collect my wallet. He approached. I told him to stop. He pulled his knife. I pulled back my jacket. He smilled and went the other way. I walked on.
LaPierre is deserving of criticism on occasion, but this is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many accidental gun injuries/deaths are their in houses that own a gun?
Now compare that to houses that don't own a gun.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
How many accidental maulings / fatalities are there in houses that own a dog?
Now compare that to houses that don't own a dog.
When dogs are outlawed, only outlaws will have dogs.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please turn in your kitchen knives. While you're at it, have your gas and electricity cut off. Statistics show that in every single electrocution. electricity was near by.
Re: (Score:3)
Can reading a book the wrong way end up with you or the people around you suffering direct serious injuries? Can a kid come across your book and accidentally kill his buddy when they're reading it together?
I'm not saying you can't have your gun, I'm saying it's more dangerous to be in a house with a gun - the same way it's more dangerous to drive in a car than work from home. Some people find the risks acceptable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And even useful for protecting your guns, when the Socialist Democrats come to take them away from you...
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialist Democrats
If you call your Democrats that, it makes me wonder if you have ever seen a Socialist.
Let me give you a clue here. Socialists are not the same as marxists are not the same as communists.
If you had socialists in power, there is no way you would not have universal health care by now. Your health spending would be somewhere under half what it is now and you wouldn't have 50 million without any health care.
Eastern Europe during that bad days of the Soviets may not really have been socialism but if you like to call it that, be aware that they allowed a lot more gun ownership than Western Europe does now. If people have guns but no tanks and armoured vehicles they can think they can defend themselves. What is happening in Syria shows how well that works...
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
My experience is that handguns are a waste of time, and more dangerous to the owner and his/her family than useful.
Evidence that you don't know how to use one. Get some training; since you didn't grow up around guns I'm sure your dad didn't teach you. If everyone in the family has proper gun safety knowledge the risks are infinitesimal. On the other hand I do personally know people who have had to show a gun in self defense. Fortunately about 98% (IIRC) of the time a firearm is shown in self defense, that's enough to diffuse the situation without a shot having to be fired.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
No, this is utter bull shit. The stat, which is a Brady creation, is that for people with a gun in the home, they are more likely to be "harmed" by a gun. Now, think that through. If you want to commit suicide and you have a gun at the house, um sure you will use a gun. This does not mean you will fall victim to a gun homicide nor does it mean your gun will be used against you.
This is a complete and utter manipulation of the numbers which you have bought into lock stock and barrel.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Informative)
I think one of the more egregious misleading statements is the one about harming a "friend or family member". They classified "friend" and anyone you had even passing knowledge of. Since real random crimes are rare, most of the gun violence crimes fall under their definition.
And you want a cite? I give you the collected works of John Lott.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
The numbers come from w32-w34 statistics which don't include suicide.
There is very specific and clearly spelled out metrics.
Example:
Firearm deaths:
99 00 01 02
Unintentional (W32–W34) 824 776 802 762
Suicide . . . . (X72–X74) 16,599 16,586 16,869 17,108
Clearly the are broken out.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_10.pdf [cdc.gov]
When I saw w23-w34 and you DON"T know what I am talking about, then you aren't qualified to have an opinion with any real weight behind it.
Also:
According to the CDC, a child dies every 3 days from an unintentional gun shot.
Re: (Score:3)
First, Child is anyone up to 19 and at least 2/3s of that ~150 or so deaths occurs in the 16-19 yro range.
Second, the original statement was not tied in any way to the CDC data because the CDC data does not in any way suggest a likelihood or probability of firearms death for those who possess a gun v. not possessing a gun.
So I am very right that the OP was munging the Brady stats, of which the Brady bunch and others have been forced to admit that their stats include suicides and treats all deaths up to 26 a
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, those stats don't talk about suicide or accidents. But that's also beside the point.
The key point is that if you own a gun which is in your house, then you are more likely to be harmed by that gun than by a gun brought in by someone else. That's true even if you exclude suicide and accidents.
Hint: Think about domestic violence.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:4, Informative)
But if you take the gun away, the person is less likely to commit suicide - the same way if you put up a fence along a bridge, people are less likely to commit suicide by jumping off.
The statistic is right to include suicides as those are deaths that could have been prevented.
You are kidding, right? If you look at the suicide rate of states it's intimately linked with economic prosperity and not easy access to, or the lack thereof, guns. MA has just as many suicides per capita that other mid size prosperous states do, but less with guns and more with pills, etc.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder if statistics show that people who feel they live in a dangerous area are more likely to live in a dangerous area?
I wonder if statistics show that people who feel they live in a dangerous area are more likely to obtain a firearm?
I wonder if those statistics could be related to the debate.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, according to the FBI's NCVS data, if the victim has a gun, the odds of the victim being injured (in the case of robbery or assault) or the robbery being completed go down over any other response. Even if the criminal initiates the violence.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
You, sir, are a moron. The per-capita intentional homicide rate in the United States is about 3 times the per-capita murder rate in Australia and the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, lets us individual cases and build argument on biased emotions. That will solve everything. Idiot.
And your examples is fraught with the logical fallacy that she could have stopped them with a gun. That is a very broad assumption.
"Statistics show taking guns away causes an increase in violent crime... See Australia and England
Statistics show that allowing for more lawful firearm posession (concealed carry) tends to reduce violent crime... See Florida, Texas etc."
OMG. You are an idiot. Florida and Texas
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny how people cherry-pick their stats, isn't it? I live in Texas. And by the FBI stats, Texas is not even close to the most violent state in the Union. The "Peace index" is meaningless, and the other chart is raw numbers, so of course we have a higher number than less-populous areas. And the statistical abstract for the United States does break down the stats by prior years' per capita rates, and shows that there was an immediate drop in certain areas of violence when the concealed carry laws were enacted in Florida and Texas.
Full studies show a high correlation of violence related to drugs and alcohol. Prohibition isn't working and harsh consequences make the relative cost of doing violence lower than just getting caught.
I would also like to see a cross cultural study: It is amazing to me that gun violence in Canada is so much less than the USA.
The two countries with the highest non-war-related per-capita death-by-violence over the last 20 years are Brazil and Mexico, which are also two of the countries with the harshest gun laws.
In the UK, violence went up after the ban on guns and personal weapons (I have friends who had their collectible swords confiscated), but it was more people being bludgeoned and stabbed instead of shot.
Lots of factors need to be considered before a meaningful correlation can be drawn implying cause-and-effect for violence. Cherry-picking statistics are false logic.
However, for those of you who are entertained by false logic, here's something I received in my e-mail a few days ago: .0000188.
Scary Doctor Facts
This is really something to think about:
A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000
B. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171 (US Dept of Health & Human
Services).
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000. (That's right, 80 MILLION! And statistics show that there are two guns in the USA for every man, woman and child.)
B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
before this gets out of hand.
As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for
fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing you're glossing over the fact that people with vigilante tendencies, low IQs or mental problems should not be allowed to carry a gun, but do because guns are too easy to get. But hey tell that to the Pastor's daughter in Florida who was shot in the head through a wall when a security guard at the church was playing with his gun. You're absolutely right, her having a gun would have made her immune to bullets.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pastors-daughter-accidentally-shot-in-the-head-in-church-dies/ [theblaze.com]
I don't think guns should be banned, I think they should be controlled and only licensed to people with extensive training or military experience. You know, like Switzerland where everyone is armed because everyone is in the military.
Sure.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disarming the citizenry in a dictatorship is SOP. Isn't Hugo running behind on that?
Re: (Score:3)
it's easier to kill civilians when they can't shoot back, see: Syria
Yeah because if people in Syria were allowed to carry handguns, they could just shoot those artillery shells out of the sky before they hit...
Argument: People cant revolt with knives and clubs improvised from things they find around the place, because the government has guns. So the people should be allowed to own guns too, so they can fight the government.
Corollary: People cant revolt with guns, because the government has tanks, helicopter gunships, artillery. So the people should be allowed to own t
Difference between stated intent and real intent. (Score:4, Insightful)
"The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms."
That's what Venezuela claims. In reality, the government prefers a citizenry armed with sticks and rocks when the inevitable revolt comes to pass.
let's put the tinfoil hats down for a second (Score:5, Interesting)
"The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms."
That's what Venezuela claims. In reality, the government prefers a citizenry armed with sticks and rocks when the inevitable revolt comes to pass.
I might have a slightly different perspective (given that I come from Nicaragua, a country that used to be plagued by civil wars and tyrannical regimes.) There is a lot of truth that violent crime is up to levels never seen before in Venezuela's history (same in other countries, like Honduras and Mexico.)
Violent crimes are simply too much for the government (tyrannical or not) to handle. A general dissarmament (coupled with other social changes) can curb violent crime in poor countries with poorly developed (or unmaintained) social institutions. And by social changes I mean more pluralistic participation, increased professionalization of the police and armed forces, an opening of markets, however poor the country might be, and an atmosphere devoid of continuous civil strife.
I do not believe the Venezuelan government is simply trying to disarm the civilian population just to remain in power. I'm not a Chavez-sympathizer, au contrair, I loathe everything he stands for. However, this is just too simplistic an explanation, one well suited for playing arm-chair conspiracy theories. It also neglects to acknowledge that a substantial % of the population supports him (populism sells for the simple, destitute masses.)
They Venezuelan authorities have a substantial criminal violence problem in their hands, and this is one necessary (but not sufficient) step to curb it. It will fall short given that all the other necessary ingredients to make it work.
And that is the sad mark of incompetent regimes: to take uneducated, incomplete shortcuts to solve extremelly complex socio-economic problems.
Re: (Score:3)
huh, (Score:4, Insightful)
The only time you'll need the second amendment is when they try to take it away.
Re:huh, (Score:4, Interesting)
Not necessarily. Asymmetric warfare is never that simple. If things in the US got bad enough for a general revolt, it would be unlikely that it would set up as the police / military vs. 'the people'. It would be more of a civil war situation where people would be siding with or against the government depending on location, religion, economics and / or other criteria.
There would likely be defections from military and certainly local police. It would be gorilla style warfare rather than set piece battles. Rifles and shotguns would be very useful. F35's not so much - you don't want to flatten your own territory.
Now, if you are really planning on dealing with this sort of thing you should also stock up on small UAVs, timer chips, thermite, diesel fuel and fertilizer as well as practicing small squad tactics. But it's lots more fun to complain and destroy targets at the range.
The premise seems failed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The premise seems failed. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The premise seems failed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The premise seems failed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, if you make it to the hospital there's something like a 95% survival rate on gunshot wounds. They don't tend to do much internal damage if they miss the lungs and heart and even on a perforated lung you can survive quite a while. Individual stabbings tend to do more damage because a slashing motion on removal can tear up a lot of fleshy parts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The most important thing in self-defense with a hand gun: shot placement. A little Ruger LCP 380, if you use a hollowpoint and hit center mass, will be
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mod parent UP!
I am a gun owner. I have guns in cabinets. To date, none have jumped out and tried to throttle me. I feel pretty safe around them.
I have to say though, I'm watching my .22. It's got a nasty glint in its eye.
Re:The premise seems failed. (Score:4, Funny)
It has an inferiority complex. All .22s do. I hope, for your sake, it is a long rifle. At least then it will be content with being able to say it is "bigger" than the other guns and still be able to live with itself.
Forks (Score:5, Funny)
And forks make people fat.
Disarm the good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disarm the good guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, this could be interesting, as long as we can get reliable statistics... if gun-related violent crime rates stay the same, that'll answer the question once and for all, and everyone trying to disarm citizens in other countries won't have a leg to stand on. If it DOES work, then maybe its time for people to think more creatively about weaponry, and possibly move away from firearms to weapons that are either more generic, or more specialized.
I can see the next step after this being shoot-to-kill directives for enforcement witnessing a crime in progress with any non-regulated participants brandishing firearms.
Re:Disarm the good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this could be interesting, as long as we can get reliable statistics...
Snicker ;-)
Crazed socialist wants to disarm the proles (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking news. Full story at eleven...
Comment removed (Score:3)
Yeah.... sure... (Score:5, Informative)
LOL! I Lived in Venezuela for a year and I don't believe that this is to prevent street crime. When I lived there, it was dangerous to ride a nice bike in certain areas because street criminals would stab you and take your bike. They wouldn't ask, they would just take it before you had the chance to do anything. Was that common? No. But it happened. I think this has more to do with keeping Hugo in command, especially with his failing health. Most people there can't afford guns, or ammo. They have armed security guards at Wendy's. They give them a shotgun with a couple of shells, or an old beat-up revolver with just a couple of bullets. Why? Because they don't want the guards selling the guns/ammo for cash.
I was there for the infamous 11 de Abril, in 2002 when Hugo was temporarily replaced in a military coup. I don't think he has forgotten that day, and never will.
Statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
100% of Homicides are linked to humans killing each other, regardless of implement.
Seriously, this is all about cementing a communist regime and preventing armed rebellion by the people.
Only the army, military, mercs, and criminals will have guns. Average Jose/Josefina Citizen will be stuck in the middle unable to defend themselves from gangs or oppression.
Those who cannot remember the past... (Score:5, Insightful)
...are condemned to repeat it.
Past tyrants are, I'm sure, cheering from the grave.
Re:Those who cannot remember the past... (Score:5, Insightful)
Past tyrants are, I'm sure, cheering from the grave.
The necessary goal is to make current tyrants cheer from their graves.
The reason for private citizens to own guns is so we can execute corrupt police, tyrannical senators and presidents, and (oh yeah, way way down on the list) muggers. This is why police, senators and muggers favor disarmament. It's time we treated disarmament advocates as active collaborators with these people, and punish them accordingly.
Why not just ban homicide instead? (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to Reality. Population: not you. (Score:3)
You really think criminals give a SHIT about the Law?
Well done, Hugo, you might as well just put up a sign reading: "Welcome to Venezuela, our citizens are unarmed; please rob, rape and murder at leisure."
Re: (Score:3)
The criminals would have to get in line behind his government.
Welcome to the land of made up minds... (Score:4, Insightful)
On one side we have the "Pry my gun out of cold dead hand" coalition, on the other "let's arm everyone with daises and sing Kumbaya" brotherhood. Both believe they have the moral high ground and both are offended the other won't stop being ignorant and change their point of view. Jeeze, let's just agree to disagree. Guns are tools. They are tools specifically designed to kill. There are societies with lots of guns and societies with none at all. There are societies which have evolved in the presence of guns, and therefore have incorporated guns into their social fabric so making blanket statements pro or con is just being ignorant and ill informed and you can't compare societies with guns and ones without.
The folks who think we need guns to fight our government are deluded. I'm sorry but your gun in the face of air to ground laser guided missiles is fighting a samarai katana with a wet noodle... good luck with that. Get a reality check, if your government turns on you, you will be out gunned, out manned, and at the mercy of technology over which you have no hope of beating. WAKE UP. For those of you who think arming yourself against street crime is stupid, you clearly aren't paying attention to the state of street gangs and the violent mentally ill wandering our streets. That said, the best experts I've ever heard on the subject all say the best answer by far is to learn critical self defense techniques including basic knife fighting and defense with and against guns. Trained self defense is always with you (you'll never discover you left it at home when you need it) and any way the most effective defense technology available is "Run Fu" or don't be there when the schist and the fan collide.
So please enough of the Rambo thinking, its a fantasy, and my darlings on the other side, please man up, its a scary world and being prepared for bad news before its bad news about you is a very intelligent way to get to a ripe old age.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is a bad law in theory and I think your latter point is true.
It also seems like it will end all of the shooting sports.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the only reason to disarm your populace - to make it lethal to fight back against tyrannical regimes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because it's easy to defeat a modern army using only cheap pistols.
Yea, it's not like there's ever been a time in history when a smaller, [wikipedia.org] poorly equipped [wikipedia.org] group of volunteers fed a large military force their own asses, [wikipedia.org] or anything...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your first two links demonstrate that you apparently don't know what "modern" means. Your last link is the story of an invading force fighting a very unpopular war a long way from home. The outcome of the Vietnam war was determined in the US, not in Vietnam.
Re: (Score:3)
If this is a good law in theory, then what is your stance on the citizens of the USA's right to bear arms?
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not the GP to whom you addressed the question, but it's one that interests me. I'm an American citizen. I own a gun safe, which contains a collection of rifles, shotguns, and pistols. But I don't consider myself a gun nut. I don't shoot very often. I've only ever done target shooting for sport. I've never hunted. In short, the 2nd Amendment has some effect on my life, but I don't put food on my table using firearms.
The right of the citizens of the USA to bear arms has been codified in the Constitution of the United States, which means that the US Supreme Court has the authority to uphold or strike down laws that interact with it. I would not suggest repealing the 2nd Amendment. I don't believe that it is a good use of our legislative time or money to try to craft laws that try to find sneaky ways around constitutional requirements. For example, the California 'assault weapons' ban is, in my opinion, a pointless and reactionary law that depends upon hysteria and ignorance in the people who support it. I happen to own an SKS rifle that would, I believe, be illegal there. But it's no more or less deadly than any other gun that I own. Apparently, they have banned this gun because it 'looks scary'.
At the same time, I find it preposterous when people suggest that if everyone just walked around with a gun strapped to their belt all the time, that this would somehow reduce gun violence. It would be laughable, if it weren't so ominously crazy. People suggest that, say, at Virignia Tech, if all of the students had been armed, then the whole thing wouldn't have been so bloody. But what happens when everyone has a gun, nobody knows who the bad guy is, and some kind of mass gunfight erupts in the middle of campus? It's a battlefield situation where none of the players have learned any battlefield discipline. Or, this: right now, it's illegal in my state to bring a gun into a bar. What would happen to bar fights if everyone was armed? Drunken bros would be shooting people right and left. For me, the bottom line here is that people (and especially younger people) are demonstrably bad at considering the consequences of their actions before they act. In such a situation, it seems ludicrous to arm them all with deadly weapons.
So my stance is that it's a complicated issue, and that I don't believe it's responsible to have a yes or no answer to whether I support the right to bear arms. In general, I do. But I think there are exceptions that are appropriate. Last year, a crazy man who lived in my town shot his ex-girlfriend to death. Now, if he hadn't had a gun, maybe he would have done it some other way. But I don't see why we should arm people who are mentally unstable and violent. If he'd only had a knife, he'd have needed to get a lot closer to stab her with it, and she might have had time to react. I don't want to play a long game of 'what if' about it. I'm just saying that while the right to bear arms is important, I believe it also should be moderated.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Your worry proves why this and all civilian disarmament efforts are BAD in theory.
Re:violent crime, eh? (Score:4, Funny)
Is he planning on coming back as a zombie to rule? Their constitution will have nothing to do with him keeping him out of office, his death from cancer will though.